Research Article

Development, validity and reliability of Persian quick speech in noise test with steady noise


Background and Aim: Quick Speech in Noise (Q-SIN) test has popularity for evaluating speech recognition in noise. The present study has been paid to build five new Persian lists with respect to all possible factors affecting the test, to determine validity of the test and to
run five lists for normal hearing subjects and assessment of reliability.
Methods: To build lists, frequent, familiar and difficult in terms of cognitive (cohort size of above three) words were used to construct un­predictable sentences. After determining the content and face validity, the 30 selected sen­tences were recorded in the studio by a familiar female speaker. The recorded sentences and prepared four talker babbling noise were com­bined in Cool Edit software. Then five test lists were conducted in 35, 18-35 year old indi­viduals with normal hearing. The reliability was assessed with the retest after two weeks.
Results: The 30 sentences became valid (con­tent and face validity) with the change accor­ding to expert judges. The average Signal to noise ratio (SNR) loss of five lists was 0.35 dB. There was no significant difference between men and women in all lists except list 4 (p=0.03). The results indicate no difference in the average SNR loss between five Lists.
In reliability assessment test-retest correlation coefficient was 8.0 (p<0.05). Intra-class coeffi­cient (ICC) for lists was statistically significant (p=0.00) and confirmed the lists have reliability and high repeatability.
Conclusions: The Developed lists are valid, equivalent and reliable and can be utilized in clinical application.

Duncan KR, Aarts NL. A comparison of the HINT and Quick SIN tests. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2006;30(2):86-94.
2. Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GL, Revit LJ, Banerjees S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116(4 Pt 1):2395-405.
3. Theunissen M, Swanepoel DW, Hanekom J. Sentence recognition in noise: variables in compilation and interpretation of tests. Int J Audiol. 2009;48(11):743-57.
4. Assi SM. Farsi linguistic database (FLDB). International Journal of Lexicography. 1997;10(3):5.
5. Shayanmehr S, fatahi J, Tahaei SA, Jalaei S. Calculation of cohort size for the list of Persian high frequency spondee words. Audiol. 2014;23(3):30-8. Persian.
6. Vojnoviü M, Subotiü M. Specifiþnosti QiuckSIN testa za srpski jezik. Telekomunikacioni forum TELFOR. 2010;23-5:1033-6.
7. Wilson RH, McArdle RA, Smith SL. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, Quick SIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007;50(4):844-56.
8. Harley TA. The psychology of language from data to theory. 3rd ed. New York: Psychology Press; 2008.
9. Gahl S, Yao Y, Johnson K. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. J Mem Lang. 2012;66(4):789-806.
10. Adams EM, Moore RE. Effects of speech rate, background noise, and simulated hearing loss on speech rate judgment and speech intelligibility in young listeners. J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;20(1):28-39.
11. Cox RM, Alexander GC, Johnson J, Rivera I. Cochlear dead regions in typical hearing aid candidates: prevalence and implications for use of high-frequency speech cues. Ear Hear. 2011;32(3):339-48.
12. Astheimer LB, Sanders LD. Predictability affects early perceptual processing of word onsets in continuous speech. Neuropsychologia. 2011;49(12):3512-6.
13. Shultz kS, Whitney DJ. Measurement Theory in Action. 1st ed. London: Sage Publications; 2005.
14. McArdle RA, Wilson RH. Homogeneity of the 18 Quick SIN™ lists. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(3):157-67.
15. Parbery-Clark A, Strait DL, Anderson S, Hittner E, Kraus N. Musical experience and the aging auditory system: implications for cognitive abilities and hearing speech in noise. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e18082.
16. Parbery-Clark A, Skoe E, Lam C, Kraus N. Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise. Ear Hear. 2009;30(6):653-61.
17. Calais LL, Russo IC, Borges AC. Performance of elderly in a speech in noise test. Pro Fono. 2008;20(3):147-52.
18. Wiley TL, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BE. Aging and word recognition in competing message. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;9(3):191-8.
19. Yund EW, Woods DL. Content and procedural learning in repeated sentence tests of speech perception. Ear Hear. 2010;31(6):769-78.
IssueVol 24 No 4 (2015) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Quick speech-in-noise test cohort model of word recognition validity equivalency reliability

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Shayanmehr S, Tahaei AA, Fatahi J, Jalaie S, Modarresi Y. Development, validity and reliability of Persian quick speech in noise test with steady noise. Aud Vestib Res. 24(4):234-244.